600. Teams of people

If the scheme of the WITORG Guide is observed, internal elements 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 of an organization are developed in part by the people that comprise it. Sections A, B, C and D contain elements that are outside the organization and that, at a given time, were chosen by the people within and began to influence or were part of it. Therefore, it is the people and the interaction between them that build and evolve any organization’s organizational system.

Although it may seem obvious, it is clear that people are responsible for developing points 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500. And they are also responsible for choosing between the elements from sections A, B, C, D or adapt and live with them. In this point, 600, we will deal with aspects related to the people that participate in an organization and are in charge of making it evolve or involute regarding points 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500, with the help or influence from A, B, C and D.

When it is mentioned that ‘people are the most important thing in an organization’, perhaps it should be explained that people evolve or involute an organization created to achieve objectives. So, what is important, the objectives or the people within the organization? Are people and goals equally important? What happens to people when objectives are not achieved in an organization? Do the previous questions have a single answer? WITORG understands that this is not so.

The topic about people or teams of people and their participation within an organization is very broad and complex, it has been written and spoken a lot about it, providing philosophies, methodologies, systems, tools, and much more elements. Point ‘600. Teams of people’ of the guide is not intended to provide solutions, but to analyse the characteristics of an organization in terms of the people and teams of people participating in it. Getting a picture of an organization’s concrete situation is the objective. From that picture, and taking into account the influences of ‘D. People’, we will try to provide ideas or tools to try to evolve an organization through their people. All of this, with the aim of adapting, or even anticipating, the increasingly uncertain and changing realities and continue surviving.

Interest groups in an organization

WITORG defines ‘interest group’ in this chapter as a group of people who share, or can share, a series of elements within the organization where they operate. These elements, although, in fact, are not always shared by a single interest group, are:

• Work experience.
• Academic background.
• Compensation.
• Hierarchical level within the organization.
• Social status.
• Responsibility.
• Etc.

Each interest group should have a similar level in the points shown above. Although there are situations where in a theoretical ‘interest group’ there are people who may not have a similar academic level, or similar experience, or similar compensation, even if their responsibility and hierarchical level are similar.

A single interest group or several groups can be detected in an organization. If it is small in terms of headcount, there are usually fewer interest groups. On the other hand, in a large organization in terms of headcount, there will usually be a larger number of interest groups. This statement is a general rule, although there are several exceptions.

Here follows an example of an organization with five interest groups.

• Group 1: Senior management.
• Group 2: Managers or senior profiles with university academic background or proven experience.
• Group 3: Junior profiles with university academic background or technicians with experience and some academic background.
• Group 4: Qualified operators with some academic background and experience.
• Group 5: Unqualified operators.

About these five interest groups, note that:

• In reality, and in many organizations, there are profiles that, due to their personal abilities, both political and professional, and over time, reach positions or interest groups that, in principle, and by their entry profile, were not available for them.
• There are also profiles within interest groups that have been introduced for political or relationship reasons, and that in principle do not match the group, creating an internal difference. This fact can lead to comparative grievances.
• The particular history of each organization derives in a present situation. There are groups of interest that at a time were granted special conditions, which currently have ceased to be, a fact that creates comparative grievances with other interest groups.
• Apart from the interest groups, organizations present illogical situations, usually in individual conditions, that create comparative grievances both within a group of interest, and between different interest groups.

If the exercise of classifying interest groups in an organization is carried out, certain difficulties or situations may arise:

• Not being able to classify people into a reasonable number of interest groups.
• Classifying the interest groups and seeing different value contributions by some individuals within the same interest group.
• Classifying the interest groups and seeing very different conditions between different interest groups.

It is usually alarming when it is difficult to make a classification in interest groups. Also, when after classifying the interest groups, it is discovered that there are important differences within each one.

Participating options in the organizational design

Each person is an ‘end in oneself ‘, with their illusions, personal projects, hobbies, family and social environment and profession. The profession is a very important part of life, because it covers a considerable amount of hours a day and influences the rest of the existence’s facets. Each person values their work, or profession, in a different way. A person’s attitude before this fact is clearly influenced by two reasons:

• The own interest in what is done, that is, a person’s interest for his profession, which he values through different criteria such as professional development, personal development, social status, financial reward, being busy, etc.
• An organization’s true interest in how much and how it wants to involve the people who participate in the organization. The true values really applied within the organization regarding relationships with people.

We are facing a reality where each person-organization binomial is a unique entity. Although, of course, similarities and generalities can be found, it is easier if they are within an interest group and perhaps less among different interest groups.

Being able to participate, propose, collaborate, decide on organizational issues, can mean for people the feeling of belonging to a team and of being participants in an organization’s evolution. In short, to feel part of it collaborating in its development and, therefore, being part of its survival over time. The following questions arise regarding this:

• Does an organization allow all the people that make it up to participate in the organizational design?
• What is the level of participation in the organizational design of each one?
• What is a person’s motivation to participate in the organizational development?
• What does a person gain by participating in the organizational design?
• Are only the people in certain interest groups the participants in the organizational design?

These questions are very general, while the answers will be different for each person within the organization although, as a rule, the answers from the same interest group are more similar to each other than to other interest groups.

If a person analyses his own situation within an organization or an organization analyses a person or interest group’s situation, an evaluation could be made according to the following three parameters:

• His hierarchical level or interest group within it and the freedom or role given to that hierarchical level in terms of participation in the organizational design. The POWER of influence.
• That person’s academic background and professional experience. KNOWLEDGE, skills.
• That person’s interest in participating in the organization evolution. INTEREST, WANTING, attitude.

Is it possible within an organization that all people can have similar levels of…?

• POWER of true influence and decision regarding organizational design.
• Knowledge and experience (KNOWLEDGE).
• Attitude, INTEREST, WANTING regarding the organization.

From now on, we will refer to these three concepts: power, knowledge and attitude as ‘factor-3’.

Is factor-3 managed for each person and for each interest group? Generally, and due to the process of historical development in any organization, factor-3 can be mismatched in part of the people within the interest groups. The reasons will surely be several, hence the importance of having mechanisms for visualization and readjustment of factor-3.

The monitoring of factor-3 is not a form of control over the organization’s people, WITORG believes it to be a form of empathy through which the people’s ‘well-being’ within it is measured. Neither monitoring factor-3 must be the same for each interest group. Each organization decides which of them are more relevant and the reasons for it. Not forgetting that the disparity in the perceived treatment among various interest groups can cause friction between them.

Enhancing factor-3 in a positive way will help the people’s participation and involvement in an organization’s evolutionary process in its necessary adaptation to the current changing world. This is one of the basic points for an organization’s survival of over time.

Interest groups and people in the organization

The people that are recognized within an interest group are compared among them through several variables:

• Knowledge and experience (knowledge).
• Power of influence granted by the organization to a person (power).
• Implication.
• Dedication.
• Transparency regarding members of the same interest group.
• Compensation.
• Other

Each person is compared with the other people in the same interest group and makes a judgment of his value about his situation with respect to the rest of the members. His attitude and interest will be influenced according to the level of justice perceived. With greater differences, the perception of ‘non-justice’ will prevail, and the attitude will generally be of less interest for the organization and greater frustration. There are exceptions, but a perception of non-justice will eventually cause a person’s interest and attitude to be influenced regarding his contribution to the organization.

This fact occurs in the same way between different interest groups. The perception of injustice among them may not help to positively enhance the elements of attitude or interest of factor-3.

We can find in an organization great differences between two interest groups. These differences are identified through the following parameters:

• Compensation.
• Factor-3, knowledge (knowledge and experience).
• Factor-3, power (of true influence and decision in terms of organizational design).
• Factor-3, person’s interest in what he does.
• Social class.
• Perception from management in terms of the ease to replace people in a specific interest group.
• Any other the reader wants to add.

When the people in an interest group perceive the existence of great differences between their interest group and other groups, a sense of injustice and of undervaluation by the organization towards these people can appear. This fact affects negatively factor-3 in terms of people’s interest, attitude or willingness towards the organization.

The growing complexity in which any organization is immersed requires the people’s collaboration. This collaboration is usually necessary within a group of interest or between different interest groups and is defined as ‘teamwork’. Will people be willing and motivated to work as a team? What happens when the perception of justice is negative both within an interest group and between two or more interest groups?

Teamwork

WITORG wants to highlight teamwork as a need to bring together knowledge, organizational system and other elements, and to solve complex situations to a certain extent that arise in any organization where a single person, either by the variety of knowledge required, or either by a load/capacity ratio of associated work hours, does not have the capacity to carry out the entire task individually.

The concept that teamwork is just something authentic and genuine, that it is good or that it is beautiful can be a mistake. Teamwork requires elements and values that, in addition to each person’s individual knowledge and knowledge as a team, are not always present in an organization.

In internal element 100 we reflect on the conditioning factors of an organizational system, which will also affect the concept of teamwork to be developed in an organization.

We will list below a series of teamwork elements that can facilitate its performance:

• Management commitment in terms of creating an organization for the future.
• Factor-3, knowledge and experience of people.
• Factor-3, power to participate in the organizational design, power.
• 200. Continuous improvement within the organization (WITORG Guide).
• 300. Robust and flexible management processes within the organization (WITORG Guide).
• 500. Project management or INC (WITORG Guide).
• Transparency and trust.
• Levels of self-demand, professionalism, sacrifice and personal effort.
• Participants’ rewards.
• Absence of large differences within the same interest group.
• Absence of large differences between different interest groups.
• Disagreement resolution system.
• Organizational maturity.
• Others that the reader considers appropriate.

The term ‘organizational maturity’ was already discussed in internal element 300, but its importance should be underlined at this time. People, sometimes, believe that their individual performance is good, however, they think that their department, the management process or the management processes where they participate do not work correctly. When a person is part of an entity that does not work correctly, he should consider:

• Does a good individual performance without good collective performance achieve global objectives?
• Is it possible for a team to obtain a good performance from all its individuals and not achieve a good collective performance?
• An individual who works within a group should first evaluate the performance of the group before valuing his own.
• When we work as a team, to what extent should individual performance be put in the background?

If the above points are considered, a breeding ground can be created in which the organization evolves in an appropriate way, although at the beginning the people who comprise it may distrust the leaders’ final intentions or do not have a positive or proactive interest in terms of organization. In this way, the people who participate in the organization can get to feel involved. In the end, most of them develop more efficiently in organizations where they perceive true values (not just written) such as justice, transparency and trust.

The previous paragraph seems very ideal; however, the following questions arise:

• Is teamwork necessary? To what extent?
• Is teamwork necessary throughout the organization?
• Is teamwork necessary in all the interest groups? To what extent?
• Of the recommended teamwork elements needed to create a teamwork environment, is it possible to have all of them?
• Does an organization have ‘all’ the necessary elements to promote teamwork?

Teamwork is, therefore, something to be studied by each organization for its own reality. When this topic is generalized, we enter into general concepts that will have many exceptions depending on the cases and circumstances.

In posts  Organizational systems and their evolution and Organizational systems and their Taylorist origin show organizational concepts that reflect on facilitating or non-facilitating elements in teamwork.

Leadership and teamwork

‘Leadership’ is a concept that gathers many meanings. As it can be seen in the Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership), it includes a wide range of concepts and different types of leadership for each one. WITORG invites you to consult the link outlined to be aware of the number of elements within leadership, beyond the quality and suitability of the source in question, before continuing with the reading.

What is a ‘leader’? Among the people associated with this concept, we can cite several in different fields:

• Politics and society: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Therese of Calcutta, Hitler, Lenin, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill…
• Economy: Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Amancio Ortega, Jeff Bezos…
• Sports: Michael Jordan, Maradona, Rafael Nadal…

When we talk about this type of leaders, each is recognized by some achievements and a way of being. They are more or less charismatic people with a large number of admirers and followers. And, especially in the social, political and economic areas, they have managed to drag an entire organization or country to achieve an important evolution. In some cases, positively, and in others, Hitler for example, in a negative or self-destructive way.

In the examples of leaders stated, there are more examples that achieved positive results for the environment where they happened. When a leader can drag an entire organization into self-destruction, the questions arise: what kind of leader was he? What were his leadership skills? Beyond all the questions arisen, there is the undeniable fact of his ability to drag or involve an entire organization, apart from the objective and final result.

When we talk about large, medium and small organizations that operate nowadays, it is difficult to detect people such as those mentioned in the examples, even when we refer to large organizations. Nowadays, economic leaders are associated with ‘high growth companies’ in recent years, and this has occurred in the technological world mainly or in organizations where the use of new technologies has changed business models, or at least it is trying to. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk or Steve Jobs are examples.

Some great leaders have been known for leading an organization to great success. Others for being able to convince and drag many people to change laws or get new civil rights. Others for convincing and dragging people to wars, coming out victorious in some cases and losers in others. About the great leaders, and always a posteriori, it is usually analysed on what they based their leadership. Therefore, from now on, the concept for ‘leader” as the one that achieves a ‘great’ result will be set aside and the elements to be considered will be discussed in order to exercise leadership from an organizational point of view.

In many organizations that operate in mature sectors, their leaders find great difficulties in the arduous task of survival. In order to cope with them, large investments and improvement projects are also necessary, as well as convincing and involving people and generate organizational systems so that investments and improvement projects reach a successful conclusion. These leaders, more anonymous, must prepare their organizations and their organizational systems to follow the strategy and achieve the expected results. Some of them, within their dimension, will have evolved their organizations in a meritorious way, without achieving public recognition.

After analysing the interest groups, factor-3 in the individuals and the elements necessary for teamwork, we will connect the concept of leadership to these elements. For this, we will select profit-making organizations (other types of organizations would require an own chapter to describe the leadership and its elements) and with the intention of keeping it up. Three areas of leadership are defined:

I. Strategic leadership

In an organization, the CEO and the owners or board of directors mark the strategy in terms of goals to achieve, both qualitative and quantitative. They even change or evolve the strategy on the go when situations that require it arise. A strategy requires resources to carry it forward. It may be considered if the CEO and the owners or board of directors allow more or less interest groups to participate in the design of the strategy, but the responsibility to approve and assign the resources will fall on them.

Leadership consists of designing the strategy, assigning the necessary resources and directing its implementation, which are obligatory steps to achieve the objective of involving people. If people perceive that the strategy makes sense, that resources are being allocated and that actions are being carried out, they will be able to believe in it more easily.

The strategic plans have much to do with point 200 of the WITORG Guide. In the real world there are examples where the strategic plan is more a declaration of intentions than a reality; In these cases, you can see the intention, but you do not see the resources or how the strategy is implemented. From that base, it will be difficult to convince people within the organization to work in it.

Next, we will analyse the Apple case and the two stages of Steve Jobs in this organization. Apple, from its inception, kept a product strategy as part of strategic leadership. The strategy in the two stages of Jobs was the approach to the simplicity of use, stability and robustness of its products and the coordinated design of the operating system, hardware and software. That was the approach to deliver a product with a differentiated value to the end user and, from that point, be able to participate in a market with a specific value proposition. The Apple product was considered elitist and mainly focused on certain specialties. There were other leaders at that time in the market in terms of sales and profits, since the operating system of personal computers most used in the first stage of Jobs in Apple was not his company’s. (That does not mean to not bet on a clear strategic leadership in terms of what the company wants to be, despite not being a leader, in some of the facets of leadership, such as sales, stock market quotation or others).

You can consider making an analogy between cars and Apple’s computers and phones with respect to other alternatives in the market: the iPhone, and MacBook Pro are devices that integrate two fields; the Apple equipment (hardware is the car and its operating system and the various software the road. The following conclusions can be drawn in comparison with other products:

• Apple builds cars and roads, so its cars can travel at the speeds defined during the car + road design process.
• Other car manufacturers, ie hardware equipment, can they make better cars cheaper than Apple? Of course, but do they manage to get these cars to go at higher speeds on the road where they travel compared to Apple? Not generally, and often at a lower speed because the car cannot exceed a certain speed due to the state of the road.
• Apple, in general, takes much more care of the roads than the rest (take this as an example, as it is a topic that always generates controversy).
• Traveling with an Apple car on the Apple road usually has a maintenance cost lower than most other car-road combinations. Also, a higher price is paid at the beginning.
• For a normal Apple user (most people), the time spent on maintenance due to problems is usually lower, compared to other alternatives, and is willing to make a higher outlay in the purchase of the product, with respect to other products with, in principle, same characteristics.

When talking about Apple and its products, discussions arise and agreements are rarely reached. Anyway, Apple users, in general, prefer to pay more due to their experience of use. For its part, Apple, in its product strategy over the years, has always taken into account the combination of hardware, software and operating system. And it has also allocated the resources to make this possible. Hence the importance of what is defined as ‘strategic leadership’ within the three mentioned leaderships. It is understood that Steve Jobs was a participant in that product leadership within Apple and that he was the developer of Apple’s strategy regarding the product. In this case, the product strategy was a fundamental part of strategic leadership. Surely, there are more elements than the product strategy within strategic leadership and surely Apple, more or less consciously, resigned, or failed (in the first stage of Jobs) to be a sales leader.

Strategic leadership has to do with what you want to be as a company. And not always what you want to be allows you to be a market leader in sales and profits, at least in the short term. Strategic leadership has to do with what you want to be, with a company’s vision and dose of realism in terms of defining the strategy and allocating the resources so that it can be carried out.

What were the reasons why Steve Jobs left Apple after his first phase? Was he a leader in his first phase? In what aspect was leader? In what aspects was Apple leader as a company?

It is assumed that Steve Jobs, in addition to being the reference figure in the strategic leadership in the product area, also knew how to promote teamwork in the area of product development to make Apple leader, or reference at least, in product. The way he did it has to do with the list of concepts of teamwork elements in the teamwork section of this chapter. Although this has also to do with operational leadership.

II. Management leadership

First, we will delimit what the direction of an organization is in terms of those who compose it. WITORG will define five levels:

• Owners
• Board of directors (some owners may participate).
• CEO.
• Managers who report directly to the CEO (in small organizations they may not even be considered as executives, a manager of this level could own part of the property and even be on the board of directors).
• Some people who do not report directly to the CEO, but with significant influence because of their specific weight in the organization, because they own part of the property, because they can influence it or because they are on the board of directors.

Once the five levels have been described conceptually, we will talk about them as management (the concept of management in this section may be different from the classic concept of management team in an organizational chart). It is clear that the CEO is, conceptually, the person responsible for bringing the strategy to reality. The aforementioned great leaders carried out their strategies either by conviction, either by imposition, or by having to change part of their ‘management’. They did it, so they are recognized leaders.

However, in many organizations, a CEO can face opposition to implement or carry out a strategy. It may have been approved by the board of directors and yet, there may be people within the management who do not agree with it and seek to hinder it or even prevent it. It may happen that the CEO has an approved strategic plan and the resources allocated and yet other interests within the management prevent the strategy from being implemented.

CEO’s options in the event of resistance, even if the strategy is clear:

• Convincing people in disagreement with the strategy and continue with its implementation.
• Changing the non-convincing people. Is this possible in all cases?
• Trying to implement the strategy even though some people may hinder it or even prevent it.
• A combination of the previous ones.
• Other.

It is clear that the internal ‘wars’ at management level have in many cases made it impossible to implement strategies. Obviously, there are leaders who have achieved it despite the difficulties. And there are CEOs to whom an internal war has led to their departure from an organization.

So far, it can be said that having strategic leadership and management leadership is important in order to implement a strategy. What should the leader do to have both? The answer will depend on each case, and it is possible that for each case there is more than one alternative. The recognized leader is the one that represents a success case where it was essential to have strategic leadership and management leadership.

In the case of Steve Jobs, what happened to his leadership during his first stage at Apple? What happened during his second stage? Does Apple currently have a recognized leader (it has CEO) if it is still a leading company? Does the current CEO live from Steve Jobs’s strategy? Have there been changes in Apple regarding the strategy set by Steve Jobs in his second stage? Have they helped the growth in stock valuation? Are strategic leadership and managerial leadership clear? Will Apple’s current CEO be considered as a leader as prestigious as Steve Jobs?

III. Operational leadership

WITORG, when talking about operational leadership, refers to how the people’s and teams of people’s leadership in the organization is organized, and when they do not belong to what is defined as a management team. Once the essence of an organizational system is established from the management leadership, through operational leadership, the operations of an organization are executed.

The strategies are transmitted in a mainly conceptual way, and it is the operative leadership, through an organizational system, ‘how’ the aforementioned strategies are brought to reality. Operational leadership considers many elements within an organization:

• People, with their knowledge and skills.
• Structuring the chain of command.
• Structuring the information chain.
• Taylorist concepts versus holacratic concepts.
• Bidirectional information versus unidirectional information.
• Levels of demand.
• Level of autonomy and responsibility.
• Principles for relations with customers, suppliers, collaborators and administration.
• Values.
• Criteria.
• A long etcetera.

As can be seen in the elements mentioned above, leadership encompasses a world that is too broad and complex. If this complexity is treated in a conceptual way, one can only fall into an eternal discussion without any benefit. This is why WITORG Guide intends to analyse specific organizations through some of their external and internal elements, in this way it will be possible to understand which operational leadership is applied to the reality of an organization and controversies can be avoided on topics too complex to be treated only in a conceptual way.

Elements 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, B, and C in this guide show actual operational leadership.

It may not be very constructive to talk about war, but we will mention Franklin D. Roosevelt and Hitler. Both are recognized as important leaders, and together with their management teams and their armies, they developed organizational systems. In the creation of these systems there was a strategic leadership, a directive leadership and a defined operational leadership.

The results and consequences of the war are always tragic, beyond the leaders, the victories and the defeats achieved. Of course, these examples can be valid to understand the organizational systems and the connection of leadership with teamwork. Successful leadership leads organizations to excel or survive in an environment, especially in armies that ‘compete’ with each other to achieve their goals. The same happens in organizations profit-oriented.

Leadership and values in an organization

Internal element 100 of the WITORG Guide talks about the true values in terms of the concepts ‘mission, vision and values’ within an organization. The leadership has to do with the IMPLICATION, the CONVICTION and the ILLUSION of the people in a project, hence the importance of values. Values are rules of the game to relate people to each other within an organization, therefore, the project to lead will require certain values or rules of relationship between people within the organizational system, and the values will depend on the type of project and objectives to achieve.

What values are necessary to be able to lead or have recognizable leaders? Before answering the question, it would be necessary to have the following information:

• What the objectives of the organization are.
• How strategic, management and operational leadership are defined.
• Some aspects of chapter ‘100. Essence of an organizational system’.
• Any other the reader wants to add.

Back to the concepts implication, conviction and illusion, we will reflect on them and their relationship with values:

• Implication: I get involved because life or survival goes with it. It is an implication to some extent Darwinian. In this case, the leader may have the organization’s involvement, even if there is no conviction or illusion. What values can the leader use in these cases? Are there different options of values?
• Can the people of an organization be involved and convinced, but without illusion? Are there values that suit this situation?
• Can people be involved, convinced and excited? What values would be necessary? Are there different possible values for this situation?
• Can a person be convinced and excited, but not involved in an organization’s strategy?

When you look at Maslow’s pyramid, you can think about what situation a person of a particular organization is within the pyramid. And, also, an organization can reflect on how people are in the organization regarding Maslow’s pyramid.

Bringing projects to reality requires leadership (strategic, managerial and operational). It also requires values and rules of the game or criteria defined in that leadership. And as each case is unique, recognized leaders have had the ability to understand the complex world of a project and, despite the difficulties, bring it to a successful end.

Words and speeches can excite at first. People in an organization will quickly perceive if there are real elements behind them or not. If they are not, demotivation and lack of faith usually occur.

The key elements of leadership in the WITORG guide are:

• Strategic leadership.
• Management leadership.
• Operational leadership.
• Values, rules of the game and defined criteria applied to that project.
• The leader’s ability to understand the project within their environment.

Ways are important, there is no doubt, but in reality, the background behind the ways ends up prevailing.

Teamwork and each individual’s factor-3 in an organization

In this section we intend to make a summary based on the points discussed so far in this chapter. These are core issues when it comes to understanding what degree of teamwork is possible to implement in an organization and evolve it.

I. Management’s commitment and work culture

An organization’s management, beyond its current state, will mark some guidelines for the future that will condition its organizational development. This can happen in two ways: in the evolution of the organizational system and in the involution of the organizational system.

An organization’s management establishes continuity or new criteria taking into account:

• Possibility of people’s participation in the design of the organizational system.
• Taylorism versus holacracy.
• Management styles to apply.
• Level of dedication and demand.
• Systems for the understanding or resolution of conflicts within teams.
• How management acts in times of crisis.
• Distribution of the results.
• Values to develop (true ones).
• Work culture in terms of what dedication and how intensely people should be involved in the organization.
• Training and coaching.
• Etc.

In addition, from the current situation to future approaches, management must show an idea of an organizational model in terms of continuous improvement, process management and project management (points 200, 300 and 500).

The idea shown on the three previous points by the management will indicate how the operation with people involved will be. This may be a motivating or demotivating element for teamwork.

The elements mentioned in this point will be observed by the people in the organization and will condition their attitudes. Factor-3 can be clearly conditioned by the management’s commitment. Like the predisposition to work as a team.

II. Objectives and types of organization

Organizations can look for different types of objectives:

• Economic.
• Political or social.
• Environmental.
• Contribution of non-profit aids or services.
• Sum of the previous ones.

An organization’s objectives influence the organizational model. The possibility of working as a team can be limited depending on the objectives that an organization seeks in the short, medium and long term.

III. People’s objectives within organizations

Within each organization, the people who participate in it can have one or several objectives, let’s list some:

• Develop a vocation.
• Professional development.
• A salary or way of earning a living.
• Professional prestige
• Social prestige.
• Power or influence over others.
• Necessary learning within the professional career.
• Learning and training for a while.
• Living near the home address.
• The need to occupy time.
• The need for freedom from other ties in your life.
• Contacts.
• Possibility of conducting parallel businesses.
• A long etcetera.

People are an end in themselves, and any organization can be influenced by the personal goals of those who participate in it, both positively or negatively. Therefore, WITORG sees it necessary to take into account how the people’s objectives are connected with the organization’s.

Can a person’s individual objectives make it difficult or enhance the rest of the people’s factor-3, people who participate in an organizational system? The selection of people to incorporate into an organization must be considered not only because of their knowledge and experience, but also because of how they fit in the culture of teamwork of each organization.

IV. Level of knowledge or background needed within an organization

Today, in increasingly complex environments, teamwork is necessary a large amount of knowledge is required and a single person does not have it. Therefore, in organizations where the academic level and professional experience are high and varied, almost all the members of the organization will need even more teamwork.

The people of an organization require a level of academic knowledge and professional experience to be able to develop tasks or activities. In most organizations, not all people require the same level of academic knowledge or professional experience. Therefore, different interest groups will be found in terms of knowledge and experience required.

From the previous paragraph, the following issues arise:

• Are there interest groups whose people are ‘easily’ replaced by others because their level of knowledge and experience is low, or are those profiles easily found around?
• Are there interest groups in which it is not considered necessary to strengthen factor-3? Why?
• Are there large wage differences between different interest groups? What happens when people leave the organization voluntarily?
• Is there a main reason why the aforementioned fact occurs?
• Can people from different interest groups of the organization relate to each other socially?

Until now, in this internal element of the guide, a series of topics have been treated to be able to analyse an organization through them. Often, without having a clear picture of the situation, it is tried to implement concepts, tools or methodologies belonging to external element ‘D. People and environmental circumstances’ such as the deployment of objectives, self-managed teams, teamwork, performance evaluation, coaching, etc.

Any new implementation or evolution of a new organization’s systems will be carried out more efficiently the more propitious the situation. With propitious situation we refer to the minimum necessary it must have:

• Interest groups within an organization, its internal balances and the balances with respect to other interest groups.
• Options for people and interest groups to participate in the organizational design.
• Each person’s factor-3 in an organization.
• Teamwork and necessary elements to carry it out.
• Conditioning factors to enhance teamwork and conditioning factors to enhance factor-3.

An organization’s ease or difficulty to evolve from the present moment is to a certain extent conditioned by the past. However, from the awareness of the current situation, evolution is possible, although the speed at the beginning may be somewhat less and not without difficulties.

Evolving an organization is not an end in itself. However, it is necessary because the objectives set in the medium and long-term imply, as the world evolves, a situation different from the current one. Medium and long-term objectives are set without knowing exactly how the environment will change when it reaches that medium-term and then the long-term.

           Is it possible to achieve the objectives set mid and long-term if the organization does not evolve?

This, like many other things, is not a destination, it is a journey. Relax and enjoy, evolving, of course!